I can only agree with Senor Kotler. Argentina is only one
example-- but nonetheless a very important one-- of why immediate history is
not only possible but essential. There is always a place for rigour in
method as a means of strengthening the quality of work and its
pursuasiveness in recovering "truth in danger of disappearance".

It is important to recognise that there are agendas in the traditional
historical methods defended by established and dominant scholarly
institutions. One of these agenda items is to deny that events occur under
our very eyes which are deliberately excluded from official and
institutional history. Another is the standing struggle to assert that
common people without access to repositories and vast documentary resources
still create and participate as actors in history.

Just as Freire criticised "banking" for literacy programmes, immediate
history is a provocation and criticism of the forces which would silence the
present even by tossing historians out of helicopters, etc.

If only the central powers in Europe and North America were susceptible to
this critique in the way that the rest of the world has been forced to
recognise it.

In this sense may the holidays bring you all somewhat more
justice for the new year than in the past.